Dear Readers
Following this short introduction you can read the full text of our initial submission below. As you can see, we have one big question that needs answering before we will expand our submission to include specific details of the evidence.
No doubt you will be planning to send in your own communication to the Commission. You can do so at this link. Even if you submitted to Phase 1, it is necessary that you resubmit including any new information to Phase 2 since the contents of Phase 1 submissions are not automatically a part of Phase 2. The Commissioners are particularly seeking to learn about the personal experiences of Kiwis, so your submission will differ substantially from ours. We will be focusing on the scientific content of the hundreds of reports we have published during the last four years. We are also coordinating our efforts with other groups like VFF, NZDSOS and the Health Forum to ensure that all the main points are covered, but that should not discourage you in any way from completing your personal submission. It is the stories of hundreds of thousands of affected Kiwis that will have the most impact.
We also want to thank everyone who wrote to the Health Select Committee concerning the Gene Technology Bill. We look forward to the process that will be evaluating them and the response. As you know, we consider the deregulation of biotechnology in NZ as potentially one of the biggest mistakes in our short island history.
Good luck with your submission to the Commission. Every story is a valuable part of the disastrous, divisive and ultimately very harmful record of the pandemic.
Best wishes
Guy and the Team
Our Submission—Full Text
A Loss of Trust
Dear Grant Illingworth KC and fellow Commissioners
Let me first briefly introduce our work. The Hatchard Report has an almost exclusive focus on biotechnology safety and the Covid pandemic. We operate two websites HatchardReport.com and https://GLOBE.GLOBAL. Between them, about 2-3 reports have been sent out each week as media releases, starting in 2021. We have over 11,000 subscribers who also receive these reports by direct email. The reports are widely circulated and reprinted by other alternative media outlets in NZ and overseas. This can lead to a readership in excess of 200,000 views for our most high profile articles. We have a policy of referencing our work to published scientific studies and articles from reputable sources.
The formation of your Commission appeared at first to offer a bright ray of hope, but I am writing to you today with a profound sense of disappointment. The government of the day has pre-judged the outcome of your work by tabling the Gene Technology Bill which characterises biotechnology experimentation as generally safe with risks that can be easily managed. This runs so contrary to the collective experience of our nation during the last five years, that it is hard to imagine that the final results of your deliberations will enjoy an audience in Parliament or be taken seriously by the media.
In particular, clause 50 of the Bill provides for “Mandatory medical activity authorisations: for a human medicine that is or contains gene technology that has been approved by at least two recognised overseas gene technology regulators.”
In other words, any investigative role, even of the appointed regulator, is bypassed in favour of the decisions of overseas regulators. Precisely the situation which eventually triggered the Covid vaccine mandates. The salutary lessons of the pandemic years backed up by scientific studies are not in general dispute—genetically engineered organisms can spread without limit, they cannot be contained, recalled or remediated. Moreover, medical interventions which cross the cell membrane, as Covid vaccines do, are inherently mutagenic and potentially disruptive to the functions of the immune system and health.
Especially during the last five years, the values which I and others counted to constitute the foundations of our civil society have been ignored, perverted and overturned. These include the tenets of faith, the methods and results of the sciences, the Bill of Rights, the duties of medicine, the lessons of evidence, the management of risk, the rule of law and the gifts of nature. The result has been a widespread loss of trust in our institutions of governance, education and medicine. I cannot see how the time and effort you and thousands of others, including ourselves, are about to expend on the work of the Commission can be rewarded with any reduction of the risks to public health and well being as long as the government pushes ahead to continue to prejudge the outcome of your work.
It is notable that starting in early in 2021 by invitation I engaged in a protracted email correspondence with a number of scientists advising the government on Covid policy. This correspondence was eventually terminated by my correspondents in November 2021 when it became clear that I accepted certain red flag findings indicating that Covid vaccines were creating a high rate of adverse effects and had an unknown extent of long term adverse outcomes—a position which apparently conflicted with government policy and justified my exclusion. Subsequently our work has been censored on social media outlets like YouTube and Facebook at the specific request of the Ministry of Health. I have also been subject to scurrilous and defamatory attacks on my reputation and veracity which seek to deflect attention from and fail in any way to address the well referenced scientific content of our reports.
Therefore we intend for the moment to begin our participation in the Commission’s work through the submission of a one page executive summary of our evidence-based conclusions (which follows) and an invitation for yourselves and your staff to use the search engines on our websites to assess the more than three hundred reports we have already produced which are succinct and well referenced to published science on topics which interface with your brief. I would like to appear before the Commissioners in person to present our case and answer questions.
As you are skilled in legal process, we would very much like to hear your opinion on the effect of the severe imitations the Gene Technology Bill imposes on the potential outcomes of your work.
Yours sincerely
Guy Hatchard PhD
Tel: 09 437 2012
Mob: 022 636 7760
Email: ghatchard@gmail.com
Websites: HatchardReport.com and https://GLOBE.GLOBAL
A biography is appended
Submission of the Hatchard Report—Executive Summary
A. There was a failure to take account of the known character and depth of the serious risks posed by novel genetic interventions as used by the Covid vaccines. The adverse outcomes of past gene therapy trials and the results of prior animal studies were ignored. Warnings of some internationally prominent microbiologists were dismissed as conspiracy theories.
B. Instead, authorities followed a policy which wrongly assumed the risks and possible adverse effects were similar to prior traditional vaccines. In this way they limited the number and type of conditions which might conceivably be related to Covid vaccination and thereby dismissed as unrelated red flag adverse vaccine reactions which were occurring at unprecedented high frequencies.
C. The absence of any studies of the longer term effects of Covid vaccines should have led to rigorous pharmacovigilance monitoring. Instead authorities assumed that any adverse effects would only surface during the first 21-30 days following vaccination, thus crippling their potential to assess and understand potential Covid vaccine outcomes. Border controls and contact tracing largely excluded Covid infection in NZ during 2021, giving NZ a unique opportunity to assess the effects of Covid vaccination in isolation from Covid infection. This opportunity was lost.
D. Authorities actively sought to suppress and discredit those asking questions and raising concerns on both local and international platforms, including valid scientific results and discussions. They made repeated public assurances of safety and efficacy in the face of contrary evidence and sought to control media and social media content and discussions, apparently in order to suppress Covid vaccine hesitancy. They severely disciplined doctors offering informed consent.
E. The government sought scientific advice mostly from committed vaccine advocates who had a very limited understanding of gene technology. They too readily accepted the clearly biased communications from Pfizer advising safety and positive trial outcomes. Crucially, ignoring the alarming details of wide scale high frequency adverse events contained in the document 5.3.6 Cumulative analysis of post-authorization adverse event reports of pf-07302048 (bnt162b2) received through 28-feb-2021, a version of which our government received.
F. In assessing the massive volume of scientific publishing on Covid-19 which runs to more than 100,000 papers, there was a failure to take account of a hierarchy of evidence. The results of prospective studies, time series analysis, studies of large populations, studies comparing outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and studies examining longer term outcomes should have taken precedence. If this had been followed, dangers would have been apparent and problems averted.
G. As time went by and evidence of harm in the population both here and overseas began to accumulate, authorities attempted to limit access to key NZ source data especially concerning specific parameters such as vaccine status, cardiac disease, cancer, excess mortality, etc. Those figures that remained accessible or were leaked, painted a very grim picture of accelerating ill health since 2020 that continues to be ignored by Health NZ or erroneously blamed on factors that have remained largely unchanged since 2020. Yet it has become ever clearer that the rate of Covid vaccine injuries reported to CARM is only the very tip of the iceberg.
Guy Hatchard PhD Biography
Guy Hatchard is director and principal contributor to the Hatchard Report. He has been a life-long advocate of food safety. He was formerly Director of Natural Products at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification company now known as FoodChain ID. Genetic ID developed techniques to test for the presence of genetically modified organisms in food and provided services to bulk food trading companies like ADM, Cargill, and many others in order to facilitate access to export markets and increase consumer trust. He has presented his findings to governments and industry leaders around the world. He appeared before the NZ Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and has been a key figure in discussions since 2017 which eventually led to the repeal of the Natural Products Bill. He has written a book Your DNA Diet which is available from Amazon.
He received his BSc Hons. from the University of Sussex, UK, in Logic and Theoretical Physics with a special focus on the scientific method. He qualified with a Certificate in Teaching from Canterbury Teachers College, Christchurch. His MA thesis at Maharishi International University (MIU), Iowa, analysed outcomes of mastery learning in Mathematics. His PhD thesis in Psychology at MIU investigated the impact of human factors on national competitive advantage using time series analysis. Maharishi International University (MIU) is fully accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) which is recognised by the US Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). It incorporates principles of consciousness-based education (CBE). CBE includes traditional subjects while also cultivating the student’s potential from within. He has published papers in peer reviewed journals and was the keynote speaker at the 1996 annual conference of the British Psychological Society on Crime.
